I think the fact that most of these factions will be more like "nations" (rather than kingdoms) might affect the break up of different areas..right?
Aren't these more like countries as nations rather than countries of some king?

I guess so... it makes sense. Conquering a region would mean controlling certain administrative/miliraty 'focal points' (i.e. important
cities/strongholds) where that region could be effectively managed and held for any useful duration. I believe there should be at least a few such places in a
given province but imo for the sake of simplicity they should keep it to just a provincial capital.

As for number of provinces, I think about 100 to 150 provinces should be sufficient by my tastes. Doesn't make sense to have the game bog down into
micromanagement hell with 75 provinces under your control and 50 more to win . Granted there's the automanage AI (I never used it) but still I don't see much point in overcomplicating things. I'd rather see them put
those resources into adding to the depth of each settlement, making them more valuable and unique instead of city-spamming.

However, I would like the system for conquering provinces to be changed. It is ridiculous to just take a city in a sweep, and then have a huge section of land
fall towards you. I would actually like the handing over of provinces be managed through peace settlements. If it has to be through conquering, I would like to
see the downfall of satellite cities as well as the main city of a province.

Or (and this is maybe the best possibility), a province should only fall to you if you have conquered the capital AND eliminated all enemy armies from its
territories.

I like the idea of not immediately controlling a city once you capture it. I think a province should have one major city, something that would be recognizable
to people who know even just basic geography (like London, Paris, Toledo, Novgorod, etc.) and then several small, possibly unnamed villages or towns. The towns
could add to the population of a province and maybe have recruitment slots, if that system is still in effect. Thus it would be possible to have a
"disputed" province, where one player controls the city, but the villages/towns are in the hand of someone else.

When you took a city, you could use it to retrain units, resupply (if they have a supplies system) and use it as a fort or something, but until a treaty
formally recognized your possession of the city (or maybe after a certain number of turns you can "naturalize" the city or something) you would not
be able to recruit units, build buildings or collect taxes. That way it would stop someone from simply steamrolling all of Europe.

I dont know why some of you thinks that there going to be like 100 to 200 provinces, cities.. That sounds so little to me, when you think of that M2 had 115
and a very small world. Empire will probably cover all of europe, and parts of Africa, Asia(India), Americas with 50 factions.. Then i think just 200 sounds to
little. Dont forget that there will be atleast 50 factions. The "revolutionary" map will need alot more than 200 provinces/cities :/

maybe u could have a basic city in each province still, but have surrounding little towns around it so the enemy has to go through the province and not just
take the main city, but if the main city in the province is taken the whole province falls because of its economic, law, and military hegemony it has over it.

Yes, i was thinking about that too.. If we say one province have 4 small cities and 1 large main city, you will have to conquer all small cities or just take
the main city to conquer the whole province. Maybe a nice idea.

Or this;
If you take the small cities, you will have small areas in that region/province. Or if you take the main city you will conquer the whole area in that
province.. Maybe like that.

I am reluctant to think there will actually be less, but that's the way I think CA will go (Rise of Nations game premise). It was mentioned earlier in the
thread by fast fourier transform that micromanaging 100's of territories would be more of a hassle--creating greater stress--than anything else, and I
agree. Besides, with the limited number of turns we are given, it will be more of a challenge to conquerer large sums of territory. I would think even the
experienced TW players will have their work cut out for them just trying to conquerer Europe, let alone North and South America, Northern Africa, Eastern Asia,
and India, assuming we have 200+ territories.

If there are going to be 200 provinces like some people want, there needs to be a streamlined system of management. Maybe some kind of "overmenu"
where you can scroll down and check the build lists of all your provinces without having to check them each one by one. Even when we just have to scroll
through Europe micromanaging takes forever. Now we're going to have to manage Europe plus the Americas, Africa and East Asia.

Also, conquering hundreds of provinces will get boring after a while unless the siege system is greatly improved. I think two things need to happen. One, you
need to be able to take large numbers of provinces in one fell swoop (like signing a peace treaty where the computer gives you 10 or so provinces as part of
the treaty) or two, where you don't need half the map to win. Like if there are 200 provinces, maybe you only need 40 to win.

In Medieval 2, I felt that needing between 25 and 35 provinces felt about right. Anything less was too easy, and once I had 35 provinces I coudl easy conquer
another 30 or so because I was an unstoppable juggernaut.

Maybe there won't be a set number of provinces. Maybe it will be like Civ where you can set up as many cities/colonies/forts as you would like. The
"province" size could be variable, based on the sphere of influence of this settlement.

I dont see the point of why there should be about the same 100 of provinces like in M2.. Even M2 had few provinces, in North Africa, there wasent even more
than maybe 8 cities.. There was plenty of room with more cities. Is it because the AI has difficult to control all provinces ? Or what is it?

King Baxilix,
Why do you say it is "limited number of turns"? We dont know much about it yet.. There could be and will probably be like 4 turns per year in this
game, and we dont even know if the game will end in exact 1800. It could be 1810 or something, and even if its not, we could still play longer if we want.

gluteus maximus wrote:
Maybe there won't be a set number of provinces. Maybe it will be like Civ where you can set up as many cities/colonies/forts as you would like. The
"province" size could be variable, based on the sphere of influence of this settlement.

That's a great idea, I was thinking of something similar. Every province would have a set, beginning boundary. Once the population grows and more
things are constructed, the boundaries expand, encroaching on the boundaries of others, thus making theirs smaller.

Christian Strand,
I am not for fewer territories, I am just stating what might be the perspective of CA. But I guess seasons could play a role in designating turns.